Professional Warmists Shocked No Ice Melt In Himalayas, Still Say We’re Doomed
We’ve already had confirmation on massive errors in the UN IPCC’s “science”, and know that the errors were used intentionally to scaremonger. We know that the data came from an unfounded report which had no scientific data, written by a grad student who did no field research, like so much of the 2007 IPCC assessment. And now we find
(UK Guardian) The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.
Let that sink in for a second: actual scientific research has shown that there was no ice lost in the past 10 years, the decade the Warmist say is the hottest in Earth’s 4.5 billion year history.
The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.
The study is the first to survey all the world’s icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps — Greenland and Antarctica — is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.
Oh, so Warmist are and were wrong on Greenland and Antarctica, too?
The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350. However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia’s highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.
This begs the question, why is it a concern? This happens over and over during the warm periods over the last 10,000 years, and, geez, what about the melt from the end of the last glacial period? It also begs the question, why are some glaciers growing and some shrinking? Quite a bit seems to be localized, and doesn’t seem to support the
theory hypothesis crystal ball view of anthropogenic global warming, which should mean the entire globe is warming. Which is why the Warmists have latched on to the phrase “climate change”, in order to cover their tracks for their original prognostications, and enfold everything that happens into their cult-like beliefs.
Don Surber: I do not doubt that over time glaciers retreat, or advance. Surface temperatures may even rise. But if man’s production of CO2 were to blame, the glacial meltdown would accelerate, not stop, as the CO2 levels are on the rise (as measured by proponents of the global warming theory). Instead the melt appears to have stopped.
Vox Popoli: Scientists spend an awful lot of time being stunned because they are some of the most naive, credulous, and easily manipulated beings on the planet. That’s why they tend to inordinately fall for every nonsensical philosophical and political ideology that crosses their paths. The average reader of The National Enquirer probably has a better and more-developed sense of skepticism than the average scientist.
Anthony Watts has the graphic of where glaciers are growing based on the Grace data.
Of course, not while he’s in office. Nor anytime soon. The full details of Obama’s energy cost skyrocketing plan will
Grist let’s the cat out of the bag that the whole climate change movement is not about “the environment”, but
We could probably term this as a jumping the shark moment, yet, the anthropogenic global warming movement/cult jumped the shark